Subject: Re: [6lowpan] LOAD Updated

From: gabriel montenegro <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:58:04 -0800 (PST)

Ian,

You said:

"I still believe that DYMO is more appropriate for 6lowpan, it should
require few if any modifications to run in 6lowpan networks."

I'd like to understand the tradeoff here:

DYMO
- supposedly improved. how? what are the advantages over AODV? is it really very
  different?
- slated for proposed standard. when?

AODV
- de facto standard adopted in modified form by these other groups:
  - zigbee - as explained to me during an open house, they use a modified form
    of AODV (among other mesh solutions)
  - 802.11s: after something like 15 proposals, the recently chosen basis for the 
    group's work uses a modified form of AODV with OLSR as optional. 

It is attractive to align with the above groups, so DYMO should be sufficiently
better so as to offset ths. Could you help me better understand the relative
merits of aodv versus dymo?

thanks,

-gabriel

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

_______________________________________________
6lowpan mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/6lowpan

---

From: "Timothy J. Salo" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 24 Mar 2006 00:15:48 -0600 (CST)

> Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 21:58:04 -0800 (PST)
> From: gabriel montenegro
> Subject: Re: [6lowpan] LOAD Updated
> 
> Ian said:
> 
> - supposedly improved. how? what are the advantages over AODV?
>   is it really very different?
> 	[...]

The short answer is that DYMO is the next-generation reactive ad hoc
routing protocol being developed within the MANET working group:

	http://www.ietf.org/html.charters/manet-charter.html

It arguably embodies the lessons learned from the development of
the previous iteration of protocols developed in the MANET 
working group, including AODV.  This week's DYMO presentation
is available:

	http://www3.ietf.org/proceedings/06mar/slides/manet-0.pdf

-tjs

---

From: "Ian Chakeres" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 23 Mar 2006 22:33:44 -0800

First off, I would like to say that LOAD is not AODV.  LOAD suffers
from several serious flaws.

I would like to point out my statement """I still believe that DYMO is
more appropriate for 6lowpan, it should require few if any
modifications to run in 6lowpan networks.""" was in regards to LOAD vs
DYMO, not AODV vs DYMO.

For 6lowpan purposes, DYMO is a simpler version of AODV. DYMO is
easier to implement and has lower requirements (in terms of memory,
code, etc.) than AODV. DYMO is close to what has been implemented for
sensor networks, such as tinyAODV.

AODV is no longer being explored in the MANET WG.

If you would like to chat about this, feel free to catch me
before/during the 6lowpan meeting,
Ian Chakeres

Please see the archived proceedings form previous IETFs to see more
details about the differences between AODV and DYMO.